It isn't any worse than stealth updates: it would still be out of our hands, a calculated risk.
Blair Zajac <[email protected]> wrote: >On 10/05/2012 10:06 AM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote: >>> Still, this would be only valid for all existing hashes. Imagine a >new changeset would appear which would increase the default to 8. >>> If that short hash had been used at MacPorts it would likely cause >an error, wouldn't it. >> >> Given that their "book" says the largest git repositories they've >seen just barely require 12 digits... I don't think we really need to >worry. If paranoid we could use 12 or we could use the whole thing: as >long as it works, great. >> >> If there's a collision, it will error out rather than give you bad >data: >> http://stackoverflow.com/a/7128558 > >The problem for us is if we pick a truncated hash and then there's a >collision, one needs to figure out which of the two untruncated hashes >is the correct one. Presumably, it would be the older one, but for >unpopular ports, it could be a while to figure that out. > >Seems like picking something 12 or above then means you don't need to >worry about this problem. > >Blair _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
